TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: Average Hours Worked From:eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:12:19 -0400
Ahhhh, the clean smell of reason and good research. There's hope for some on the
list. And thank you for looking through the stupidity to find something nice to
say about my post. ;-) (But, please DUNN not Dun)
Taken alone, without the BS, there is indeed truth in both statements. But, the
statement from Andrew has been separated fro his underlying reasoning(?). Andrew
does not seem to be agreeable to even concede that there should be give and take
between employer and employee. Also one has to consider the belligerent attitude
towards the average worker. The reason work is taking so long is because the
worker is wasting time. Andrew's venom is never based on an assumption of
adequate output from the worker.
I find Andrew's position (as sterilised below) perfectly valid. But, IF AND ONLY
IF the employee was hired to do some specific well defined and unchanging job.
While US law agrees that hours per week can vary, doesn't the principle suggest
that the fluctuation should be in both directions? If it's clearly understood
that the hours will fluctuate, wouldn't that suggest an average would be
considered to judge the acceptable performance and attendance of the employee?
One week you work 60hrs the next you work 20.
Eric L. Dunn
Jim Shaeffer <jims -at- spsi -dot- com> on 2002-08-02 04:42:34 PM
Please respond to Jim Shaeffer <jims -at- spsi -dot- com>
I believe that both snips below are (substantially) correct.
Andrew Plato said:
> When you are hired as a salaried person, you're not being
> hired for 40 hours of work. You're being hired to get a
> job done. And if that job takes you longer than 40 hours,
> then you should start considering ways to reprioritize your
> work such that you CAN get it done in 40 hours.
Eric Dun replied:
> A *CONTRACTOR* is hired to get a job done
> if there is a deliverable. If there isn't one deliverable
> contractor and salaried employee are hired to work at a
> reasonable pace, for the standard number of hours per week,
> for a reasonable pay.
According to my readings of material on the U.S. Department
of Labor Web site (www.dol.gov), a salary may be based on
a fixed number of hours a week (such as 35 or 40 or 45) or
it may be based on a clear understanding on the part of
the employer and employee that the hours per week will
(Note: my interpretations are based on passages
related to how to calculate overtime, since that is where
searches on "salary" and "salaried" took me.)
Jim Shaeffer (jims -at- spsi -dot- com)
Save up to 50% with RoboHelp Deluxe. Get 2 great products for 1 low price!
You'll get RoboHelp Office PLUS RoboDemo, the software demonstration tool
that everyone's been talking about. Check it out and save! http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.